We're conscious because we are beast machines

I'm enjoying Anil Seth's book, "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness." Consciousness is fascinating. Without it, we are nothing. Without it, we know nothing. Without it, we experience nothing.

So, yeah, consciousness is pretty damn important.

Here's passages from the Prologue. They offer a good feel for the approach Seth takes in his book, which is based on a solid grasp of modern neuroscience. 

The book jacket says: "Anil Seth is a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, and codirector of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science."

This book is about the neuroscience of consciousness: the attempt to understand how the inner universe of subjective experience relates to, and can be explained in terms of, biological and physical processes unfolding in brains and bodies.

...A science of consciousness is nothing less than an account of who we are, of what it is to be me, or to be you, and of why there is anything it is like to "be" at all.

The story I will tell is a personal view, shaped over many years of research, contemplation, and conversation. The way I see it, consciousness won't be "solved" in the same way that the human genome was decoded or the reality of climate change established.

Nor will its mysteries suddenly yield to a single eureka-like insight -- a pleasant but usually inaccurate myth about how scientific understanding progresses.

For me, a science of consciousness should explain how the various properties of consciousness depend on, and relate to, the operations of the neuronal wetware inside our heads. 

The goal of consciousness science should not be -- at least not primarily -- to explain why consciousness happens to be part of the universe in the first place. Nor should it be to understand how the brain works in all its complexity, while sweeping the mystery of consciousness away under the carpet.

What I hope to show you is that by accounting for properties of consciousness, in terms of mechanisms in brains and bodies, the deep metaphysical whys and hows of consciousness become, little by little, less mysterious.

I use the word "wetware" to underline that brains are not computers made of meat. They are chemical machines as much as they are electrical networks. 

Every brain that has ever existed has been part of a living body, embedded in and interacting with its environment -- an environment which in many cases contains other embodied brains. Explaining the properties of consciousness in terms of biophysical mechanisms requires understanding brains -- and conscious minds -- as embodied and embedded systems. 

In the end, I want to leave you with a new conception of the self -- that aspect of consciousness which for each of us is probably the most meaningful. 

An influential tradition, dating back at least as far as Descartes in the seventeenth century, held that nonhuman animals lacked conscious selfhood because they did not have rational minds to guide their behavior. They were "beast machines": flesh automatons without the ability to reflect on their own existence.

I don't agree. In my view, consciousness has more to do with being alive than with being intelligent. We are conscious selves precisely because we are beast machines. 

I will make the case that the experiences of being you, or of being me, emerge from the way the brain predicts and controls the internal state of the body. The essence of selfhood is neither a rational mind nor an immaterial soul.

It is a deeply embodied biological process, a process that underpins the simple feeling of being alive that is the basis for all our experiences of self, indeed for any conscious experience at all. Being you is literally about your body. 

...With each new advance in our understanding comes a new sense of wonder, and a new ability to see ourselves as less apart from, and more a part of, the rest of nature.

Our conscious experiences are part of nature just as our bodies are, just as our world is. And when life ends, consciousness will end too. When I think about this, I am transported back to my experience -- my non-experience -- of anesthesia. 

To its oblivion, perhaps comforting, but oblivion nonetheless.

The novelist Julian Barnes, in his meditation on mortality, put it perfectly. When the end of consciousness comes, there is nothing -- really nothing -- to be frightened of. 

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

"Our conscious experiences are part of nature just as our bodies are, just as our world is. And when life ends, consciousness will end too. When I think about this, I am transported back to my experience -- my non-experience -- of anesthesia.

To its oblivion, perhaps comforting, but oblivion nonetheless."

..........It occurs to me, that Eastern religions like Hinduisim and Buddhism probably equip one, in a way, to deal with this fact, that our consciousness simply ends when our physical body does, snuffing out of the candle's flame et cetera, that neuroscience makes more and more clear to us.

Those of us who are prepared to directly go where truth and science take us, whether good or bad or ugly, will accept whatever is reasonable, whatever the evidence, and science, point us towards. But for the rest, for the religious, clearly believers in Christianity and Islam will look on cessation of consciousness at death with horror and despair. (What about Judaism? I'm not sure there. I don't think there's anything said definitely about what happens after death either in the Old Testament or in other Jewish scripture. Perhaps someone could fill us in on that? Spence perhaps? On how exactly the observant Jew, that believes their scriptures and takes their faith literally, might be expected to react to the knowledge that it all ends when we die? )

Hindus and Buddhists on the other hand, while they do believe in this reincarnation/metempsychosis business, but this whole "cycle of 84" is to them a matter of horror, something that it is the highest possible goal to somehow extricate oneself from. And to them the highest possible end to the religious/spiritual effort is Moksha or Nirvana, which is the cessation of this cycle of rebirths. So that, I guess, they'll be better able to deal with the realization that that cessation is already, and automatically, at hand when we die. They're basically being offered a direct shortcut to what they would otherwise need to work their ass away for across many many lifetimes. They should be delighted to accept what science is pointing towards, as far as this, or so one would imagine.

But of course, that's only in theory. In practice HIndus and Buddishts do most of what they do, in religious terms, to earn merit and thereby ensure a good comfortable happy rebirth, and the in-principle goal of Moksha or Nirvana probably isn't everyone's cup of tea. I guess in practice they might well have as hard a time as Christians and Muslims in accepting that death spells finito.

[um]

AR

>>Those of us who are prepared to directly go where truth and science take us, whether good or bad or ugly, will accept whatever is reasonable, whatever the evidence, and science, point us towards.<<

That would be a wise advise if there was proof that science was infallible. unchangeable and definitive ....otherwise, ..... its just on the level of believe. maybe even blind believe.

"I believe it to be true because science has proven it to be true."
"I believe it to be true because AR is able to give an raltional explanation"

Life is funny.

[Appreciative Reader]

No, um, science is exactly the OPPOSITE of unchangeable. It is a tentative conclusion, and it revels in that tentativeness. In its very tentativeness lies its strength.

What science gives us is that answer, that conclusion, that seems the most reasonable, given what we know now. And what it does not know, it clearly says we do not know. Both of which --- in direct contradistinction to the methods of religion --- give us good reason to believe what science tells us. (And to revise that belief if science tells us something different tomorrow, basis fresh evidence.)

----------

As for rationality, um, that isn't infallible either, but again, that is our best bet. Certainly beats believing random stuff pronounced ex cathedra from up high by priests and popes and other assorted religious humbugs.

But it is important to note --- and this is where the Greeks of old came up short, as did the philosophers of Europe with their brilliant but ultimately masturbatory world-spanning systems --- rationality as a tool for lifting the veil off reality is very sadly hobbled without the all-important empiricism that the methods of science bring in.

Science is fallible, it is tentative --- and it is honest enough and humble enough to acknowledge both these, unlike cocksure religion that knows nothing at all but arrogantly claims to know everything there is to know --- but it is the best means we have for moving as close to reality and to truth as it is possible at some particular point in time.

[um]

@ AR

Yes , yes ... I know.

Its is the best we can get given the circumstances .. but we do never know what we get for sure and that makes it a believe.

Whatever we do 24/7 is based on believes.

Even drinking my coffee ... hahaha .... you never know were the coffe will end up. hahaha

[Appreciative Reader]

"Its is the best we can get given the circumstances .. but we do never know what we get for sure and that makes it a believe.

Whatever we do 24/7 is based on believes."

..........Agreed, um. It's the best belief, the most reasonable belief, in fact the only reasonable belief, but yes, belief is indeed what it is.

And yes, it is good to always keep that obvious, but sobering humbling thought in mind. We actually know little enough.

[um]

@AR

It is even worse AR ... washing dishes I was thinking about you and ypor point of view
and than that funny story of a man that was fallen in a pit, popped up in my mind.

Not able to rescue himself from the well, every time he was offered an solution to help him out, he refused it saying ; "how do I know for sure that if you do A not B will happen.

You see science is in a way a proof like mystics have. Only the scientist that conducts an experiment has proven something to him self. All others are believers, reading his words in scientific journals ana accepting them as they are ... unless ... they repeat the exp[eriement for them selves and prove it to be true. In that regard there is no difference with mystic experiences .. experiences that can only be proven to oneself.

And yes ... for the clever ones among the oudience ... there are experiments that can be conducted with many people as observers. ..

I lifted my cup of coffe and the coffe ended up in my mouth ... good luck ... imagine what all could have happened. ....falling over my typepad.

[Appreciative Reader]

Fair point, um. In that respect --- and that very limited respect alone --- there clearly is this similarity between the methods of the mystic and the methods of science, that the rest of us plebs must of necessity take the vast majority of all of this on trust. Sobering thought, that.

Which --- to take the thought further --- makes it imperative that we know what kinds of sources we might trust. Not just individual cases, but what kind of system we need to follow to best ensure that our (secondary) information is correctly sourced. I recall there was an article, in fact a series of articles, that Brian posted, while reviewing some book across multiple posts, not long back. (I can't recall the actual details offhand, even though it was probably no more than six months or so back if that.)

-------

As far as coffee, while I know of your inclination for not taking others' words at face value and relying instead on your own take --- an approach I empathize with --- but you'd do well to remember that Suzuki, along with being a magic Zen master, was something of an expert on coffee as well. Remember his prescription for coffee, and your keyboard and desk are safe.

[um]

@ AR

Hahahaha ... i will see if I can fond something on Suzulki's Zen of drinking coffee.

For 2 years in the past I was in a course on statistics ... even to day I do not get it how I managed, to go through it ....but there I came to understand how much there can be reeled and dealed with data. and how that is done in the scientific community to make things seen in a particular way.

But .. what is even more disturbing, is , that the majority of humanity cannot read these articles ;let alone have the educational background to evaluate them.

That is alright for things like astro physics, to give an example but worldviews etc, thoughts that can be used for people to find their way in life should be understandable for all and everyone.

That is what i "hate" about most Buddhist teachings ... not to speak of the language.

[Spence Tepper]

It's funny to read claims about consciousness when we are largely unconscious.

Those aha moments of heightened, transcendent awareness rarely occur when the physical brain is most active. Indeed, our cognitive functions are heightened by relaxation. Indeed the biochemical brain operates far slower than our actual thinking. It's a conundrum science hasn't solved yet.

The human brain processes as much information as 1 million computer processors, where signals are traveling nearly the speed of light.

But the speed of signals in our biochemical neurons is only about 200 mph. Our brains function at an infinitesimal rate compared to the modern PC. And yet what takes only one second in our brain requires a full minute for over one million pcs to proccess.

Until that is solved, trying to use current knowledge about the brain to describe consciousness is like trying to describe nuclear fission with simple addition alone. It's not real science at all.

As for what happens at death, no one knows.

[777]

In my view, consciousness has more to do with being alive than with being intelligent. We are conscious selves precisely because we are beast machines.

I all depends on
which chakra or chakra_combi
is "ON"
to think with

If U can regulate that , y'r the boss

777

[77]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/being-human-artifical-intelligence-ai-chess-antibiotic-philosophy-ethics-bill-of-rights-11635795271

By Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt and Daniel Huttenlocher
Nov. 1, 2021 6:35 pm ET

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has called for “a bill of rights” to protect Americans in what is becoming “an AI-powered world.” The concerns about AI are well-known and well-founded: that it will violate privacy and compromise transparency, and that biased input data will yield biased outcomes, including in fields essential to individual and societal flourishing such as medicine, law enforcement, hiring and loans.

But AI will compel even more fundamental change: It will challenge the primacy of human reason.

Quantum will decide which algoritmes/theories are true
with their speed of 30 000 Trillion
and foremost INTERCONNECT GLOBALLY WITH THE SAME SPEED
and nobody can prevent or shutt them off

as I expected in my comment
"How it works" which I will not repeat for the sixth time

77

[Ron E.]

“No brainstem, no consciousness. You may not be dead, but if not, you will be in an irreversible coma” - Neurologist K. Nelson, ‘The God Impulse’.
And neuroscientist Dick Swaab states in his book ‘We Are Our Brains’ - “All recent research suggests that the joint activity of enormous numbers of neurons in communication with a number of brain areas provides the foundation for consciousness.”

The neurological basis of the conscious experience is quite well established; finding out how the brain, with its network of neurons, chemicals and electrical impulses does this, may take a while.

But really, do we need science to tell us that consciousness is a property of the brain? Surely, we can see for ourselves that being conscious is a normal and natural process of how biological organisms translate what the bodily senses convey to the brain as information, resulting in appropriate action.

Perhaps (as I commented in a recent Blog), a certain prejudice arises in our minds when we alter the sense of the noun conscious when we add the adjective ‘ness’ to it giving the impression that consciousness is a separate entity. But, in spite of such influences, I do think that we ourselves can observe our own mental processes of mind, thought, memory and the conscious experience.

[Spence Tepper]

"The neurological basis of the conscious experience is quite well established"

No that is not so.

Consciousness cannot be duplicated artificially, therefore we do not yet understand it.

When it can be recreated in the lab in a machine then we will meet the scientific hallmark of understanding the variables.

The neurological corrolate of conscious experience is established but little understood.

Less brain activity yields higher levels of awareness and alertness. That has been established through years of meditation research.

That's like turning off the AC in your car to improve gas mileage. Because the AC is added to the engine, not part of it.

[Spence Tepper]

"when the body dies so does the consciousness that lived in it."

That is inaccurate.

It's like saying...
" When the front door is closed the world outside it ends."

Not scientific at all.

More accurately..
"When the body dies our ability to communicatw with the consciousness that was in it ends."

[Spence Tepper]

“No brainstem, no consciousness. You may not be dead, but if not, you will be in an irreversible coma” - Neurologist K. Nelson.

That is unscientific and unproven.
More accurately...
"When the brainstem is damaged so is the connection between the consciousness in it and the body housing it. If there is no brainstem the connection is completely severed."

[Ron E.]

At the moment, and reading neuro-candidates for substitutes for deities and meaningcandidates for substitutes for deities and meaningscientists like Swaab and Nelson (and many other scientists who are making similar discoveries) who, over several decades of work, have researched numerous cases of how the brain (and body connections) accounts for much of the phenomena that we find mysterious. So, it is reasonable to take their findings seriously rather than to allocate the conscious experience to agents other that the observable natural functioning of the biological organism.

Many belief structures have dissolved over the years under the march of scientific knowledge and for some, the erosion of human prominence or the shrinking prospect of some intervening supernatural element to give support and meaning to our lives is an unwelcome prospect.

Life as it is; birth existence and death, is not acceptable for many of us. There is a quite natural tendency to desire or invent something ‘more’.

The danger always is, to fill this gap there is the inevitable uprising of pseudo-scientific explanations for, as yet, unresolved questions as with the how and why of consciousness, along with issues such as quantum physics, dark matter and dark energy – all possible candidates for substitutes for deities and lost meaning.

[Ron E.]

Whoops! Pasting error in previous comment, first paragraph - should read :-

At the moment, and reading neuro-scientists like Swaab and Nelson (and many other scientists who are making similar discoveries) who, over several decades of work, have researched numerous cases of how the brain (and body connections) accounts for much of the phenomena that we find mysterious. So, it is reasonable to take their findings seriously rather than to allocate the conscious experience to agents other that the observable natural functioning of the biological organism.

[777]

I pasted this:
As for what happens at death, no one knows. ?
me:
Except for those who did so
NDE or/and so much better

U always are, . . . : The Creator and what will stay for ever is what U like

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. : [ Life as it is; birth existence and death, is not acceptable for many of us. There is a quite natural tendency to desire or invent something ‘more’. ]

This, unfortunately, is all too dismissive of the evidence of mystics. Have you
practiced an inner path of disciplined mindfulness to investigate their claims?
IMO, it's incumbent on you to do so before speculating in any pejorative way
about motivations. That kind of speculation is premature and hardly scientific.
It's, again IMO, more reflective of scientism than science.

To opine about about the pedigree and decades of work of neuroscientists
misses the point. Mystics are not in competition with science. They laud
science's discoveries and only propose methods to explore consciousness
itself. By the way, they insist on validating their own claims within too. In
higher mysticism, there is no discussion of "turf" or deprecation of other
methodologies either.

[s*]

777
It can be very nice to see and hear people telling about their NDE..
Sometimes itś very encouraging ..
Meditation brings one also into a ´littlebit´ of an NDE..
When just sitting alone in stillness can be very beneficial the ´world´feels different..
There is space inside when we look insight our ´own´ Being..
Feeling tranguility ...sometimes not..but just sitting is sooo good.
Especially in this period of time..where strange things are happening.

[Ron E.]

Hi Dungeness. My recent comment has nothing to do with mystics - as you call them. And yes, I spent some years with the Sufis, studied mindfulness, and for some years now practiced in the Chan (Zen) tradition.

I'm sure any honest mystic would also not take on board any un-scientific explanations for consciousness. In fact, the mystics (not that they used that term) I have known seem to be very much attuned to nature and natural processes - which accord to their own meditative inquiries.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron
You wrote
"Many belief structures have dissolved over the years under the march of scientific knowledge"

That actually works both ways. Science has also proven there is a lot more going on than what we know today.

The hallmark of Pseudoscience is drawing dead end conclusions about what we don't know, yet.

[Dungeness]

@ Ron : [ I'm sure any honest mystic would also not take on board any un-scientific explanations for consciousness. ]

Yes, that's fair to say but the mystics I'm familiar with don't hesitate to
to describe their experiences within either. That includes an expansion
of awareness to identify a "deity" (call it "God" or "totality of awareness"
or the One or any other). Their methodology is scientific and their claims
are confirmable within. However, the mystic pursues truth, not just thru
observing physical phenomena, but transformatively within conscious-
ness itself by honing and expanding awareness.

The key then is identifying what's meant by "unscientific explanation"
and whether it's solely the purview of neuroscience, rather than religion,
to study consciousness and weigh in with respectable, scientific,
commentary. Since scientists and religion's mystics readily admit the
depth of their ignorance, they can in fact both complement each other's
truth.